----- Original Message -----
From: "David A. Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Justice Du Jour
David Greene wrote:
Social justice is respeecting the dignity of every human being. It
implies equal opportunity but also that basic needs are met.
It may imply equal opportunity, though it is measured by outcome......which
is disingenuous logic that allows your definition to play both sides of the
semantic fence: "social justice" IS about equal opportunity, but we can only
decide of social justice has prevailed if outcomes are roughly equivalent.
Then we have the "basic needs" argument: we can add transportation to the
"basic needs" that a society is required to provide, all for the sense of
respecting dignity. Hmmmmmm...... If money (an extrinsic motivator) can't by
happiness (an intrinsic motivator), how can giving people "basic needs"
(another external force)provide them with dignity (and internal force)?
Maybe that analogy is apples and oranges to you, but I guess I just don't
make the connection between handouts and dignity, notwithstanding making me
pay for them.
Who's going to come pick you up during the weekday when your kids
are working?
I don't have kids.
People should be able to live independently in a way that respects their
dignity.
Relying on the government to provide rides is not living independently.
While I have conceded that public transportation is a valid expenditure of
public funds (up to a point), cuts to service due not indicate oppression,
nor do those cuts threaten dignity.
The "collective," as you put it (that is, us) has a responsibility
to the common good. Government services funded through taxes
are how we express our priority and commitment to the dignity of
those in our community.
Thanks, though I learned that in social studies class in like 8th grade.
Talk to the many users of transit about how the cuts affected them.
And they'll call it "criminal"? OK, whatever..........
"The government" is us. And yes, we _do_ have a responsibility to
each other. How should that responsibility be expressed? What's
your plan?
My plan is to not make every single life requirement a government problem.
Again, within reason, public transportation is a legitimate expenditure.
Busses are good. Roads are good. LRT...... I don't like it, but others think
it's great. PRT, buying everybody a car, hOurCar......... I think are not
appropriate public expenditures. The point here is that every human ailment,
inconvenience, risk need not be borne by the government. In this particular
instance, cuts in busses (brought about by the government that sees
everything as a "need") does not equate to government oppression rising
solely out of the inconvenience experienced by a few bus transfers.
Do we have a right to opportunity or not? Do we have the right to
worship in our community of choice or not? These are fundamental
American values and when we deny the means to exercise them, we
are sowing injustice.
OK. And whose rights to opportunity and worship are being squashed to such a
degree as to equal oppression and injustice?
You have made two flawed assumptions: the first that we must operate
under a system of scarcity. We are a state and country of abundance.
Sharing that abundance is the first step toward justice.
But this is what scares me: "sharing," I'm afraid, is a euphemism for
socialism, which scares the hell out of me. While I do not disagree that we
are a nation of abundance, I do not believe in wealth redistribution in the
name of "justice" or "oppression" or whatnot, which I believe is at the
heart of your argument. This is not to say that I am anti-tax, I'm not,
though I am against proportional or progressive taxation. We do not need to
operate under a system of scarcity....... we just don't need the government
to be the supplier of every last thing we "need."
Your second flawed assumption is that the wants of the individual must
necessarily trump the needs of the community. That is an extreme
distortion of our traditional American way of life, twisted into a
system where hyper-individualism, isolation and fear dominate our
very thinking.
What's a more "extreme distoriton of our traditional American way of life"?:
having government hand to us everything we "need" and dictate to us
everything we can do, or having a nation and state full of people who work
hard for what they want and need and make decisions on their own? Which
principle is closet to that on which America was founded?
Mike Thompson
Windom
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
